The Family Reunification Process in Child Welfare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most child protection systems, the measures and interventions applied are intended to keep children living safely with their birth families. In the Province of Québec (Canada), child protection services are governed by the Youth Protection Act (YPA). The Act indicates, among other things, that all decisions must seek to keep children in their birth family. Numerous initiatives and services must thus be employed to avoid placing children into care and to have them return to their birth family when feasible. Nonetheless, family reunification in the child protection system remains a fragile and precarious process, and a considerable proportion of reunited children later return to the foster care system. To better understand the experience of the actors involved in the process of family reunification and to identify the key elements in these families’ trajectories, an extensive qualitative study was conducted in the Québec (Canada) context. This study looked at 40 cases of family reunification. For each of these cases, one or both of the parents, their children over nine years old and the social worker assigned to a child’s case were invited to participate in an individual interview. In total, 101 individual, semi-structured interviews were carried out. Based on the analysis and findings of these interviews, this chapter looks specifically at the service trajectory in family reunification. It identifies the types of services received by the children and their families; evaluates the appreciation of the services; and sheds light on the challenges and obstacles encountered. Finally, this chapter discusses how these services should be provided to facilitate the return of children into their families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".